Re: Family specifications (was: Re: perfect-privacy.com, Family specifications, etc)

[Paul Syverson <syverson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
>      Oh.  My.  Goodness.  Gracious!  I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
> discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
> including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
> from perfect-privacy.com.  He did *not* propose, for example, any equivalent
> to #include statements.  He did *not* propose, for example, any method of
> allowing a node to specify other members of a Family.

Your interpretation of what Bruce said makes sense. But it is not
how I parsed, "BelongToFamily xyz" in his message. I read it the same
way it seems that Roger did, as giving a list: node x, node y, and
node z.  And then we're off and running. I think what Bruce/you
suggest is better than what I proposed to avoid the problems Roger and
Andrew noted. As I said before, it's not how MyFamily now works. And I
believe Andrew/Roger/me/others were addressing trying to use the
existing functionality in a different way, which was another
disconnect. Anyway, this is certainly an idea worth considering.

Now, should you ever say you are in multiple families at once?
And should there be a lattice structure for families, hmmm? ;>)

Thanks for clearing things up,
Paul
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/